Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cayenne-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 84129 invoked from network); 24 Nov 2009 15:54:08 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 24 Nov 2009 15:54:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 12435 invoked by uid 500); 24 Nov 2009 15:54:08 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cayenne-dev-archive@cayenne.apache.org Received: (qmail 12405 invoked by uid 500); 24 Nov 2009 15:54:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cayenne.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@cayenne.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cayenne.apache.org Received: (qmail 12395 invoked by uid 99); 24 Nov 2009 15:54:06 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:54:06 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [208.78.103.231] (HELO vorsha.objectstyle.org) (208.78.103.231) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:54:04 +0000 Received: (qmail 12201 invoked from network); 24 Nov 2009 15:53:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?IPv6:::1?) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 24 Nov 2009 15:53:43 -0000 Message-Id: From: Andrus Adamchik To: dev@cayenne.apache.org In-Reply-To: <3219fff70911240714p28a19ec6kddd502dc9e4abdfd@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Subject: Re: Nested ROP contexts and relationships Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:53:42 +0200 References: <13076B80-E68C-48D0-A922-404336989183@objectstyle.org> <3219fff70911240320n638b4ac7g43c2df9fb5a3cce1@mail.gmail.com> <62795893-5CC5-4453-BBFA-93924E1C9BF3@objectstyle.org> <3219fff70911240337y59b7bee6sa059a9b1d44395e9@mail.gmail.com> <69598909-41FB-4178-AC28-078EE58A5FE1@objectstyle.org> <3219fff70911240409g3585e38dncf4561968ef53afc@mail.gmail.com> <3219fff70911240630h137c677cx2a369b117bea56a9@mail.gmail.com> <3219fff70911240633w7b936a7cv3bfe3d0b0ab5c7fb@mail.gmail.com> <3219fff70911240714p28a19ec6kddd502dc9e4abdfd@mail.gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936) On Nov 24, 2009, at 5:14 PM, Andrey Razumovsky wrote: >> >> >> So ... another attempt at abstract analysis (or an attempt at >> unwinding my >> memory...) IIRC the main difference between DO and PO is fault >> handling - we >> can store a Fault instance in a map, but not in a typed ivar. So >> PO's have >> no concepts of faults at all, and the lifecycle is different. DO >> approach is >> more lazy (it won't try to create even a placeholder collection >> until the >> property is accessed), and I prefer it to PO's. Wonder if when we >> reconcile >> that somehow, the rest will fall into place on its own?? >> >> (E.g. for PO's, we generate extra boolean "fault" properties for each >> relationship, that are checked on every property access?) >> > > Nice idea, need to think about it. But anyways, this is separate task May or may not be a separate task. But definitely bigger in scope. Andrus